Pondering implications of "required ownership"


PDA






ZeSpectre
October 29, 2007, 11:30 AM
A recent news article got me thinking about places like Kennesaw, GA (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288), GEUDA SPRINGS, Kan, and Virgin, Utah where there is "required ownership of and safety training for" firearms and unless you meet some of the exemptions (convicted felon, conscientious objector, financially unable to comply, etc.) you can face a (small) fine for noncompliance.

A few of the notions that passed through my (admittedly pro RKBA) mind were...

Pro
-Mandatory safety training makes us ALL safer.
-Hands on experience would dispell a lot of myths regarding firearms and firearm ownership.
-

Con
-Imposition on individual freedom?
-Cost involved
-Time involved (both for citizens and for "enforcement"?

anyone care to help me flesh these ideas out a bit?

If you enjoyed reading about "Pondering implications of "required ownership"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
strat81
October 29, 2007, 11:39 AM
-Time involved (both for citizens and for "enforcement"?
Given the amount of time most of the population spends watching TV and surfing the net, a minor intrusion would be... well, minor. When I started grad school I was freaked because I didn't have any spare time for it. It turns out I did... I watch about 3-4 hours of TV per week now, as opposed to 20-25. Not much net surfing (or range time) either.

-Cost involved
A Maverick 88 shotgun costs $200 new. That's about 40 packs of cigarettes or 34 six-packs of beer. It's not much. No, everyone is not making six figures, but most people, even those considered low income, can scrape together for it.

Perhaps the rule should be you must own a gun before you can get cable TV.

-Imposition on individual freedom?
Probably the hardest to refute, but, as they say: Freedom isn't free.

pdowg881
October 29, 2007, 11:40 AM
I agree that people should not be forced to bear arms because it imposes on their personal freedoms. I think we have a right to bear arms, not a requirement.

You have the right not to own a gun, and I have the right to own one if I please.

jefnvk
October 29, 2007, 11:40 AM
I have a real problem with people that insist that if everyone had a firearm, the world would be better.

Some people are not comfortable around weapons. Those people are never going to be able to safely and sanely handle firearms, and I don't see how forcing them to do something they are completely uncomfortable with is going to make everyone safer.

BTW, this logic applies to drafting as well. I don't see the point in forcing those unwilling to kill others if necessary, to fight along side those that would, and risk their lives.

joab
October 29, 2007, 11:44 AM
unless you meet some of the exemptions (convicted felon, conscientious objector, financially unable to comply, etc.)Or ,in the case of Kennesaw, you just don't want one

I see nothing wrong with mandatory ownership for anyone that wants to own one

RLsnow
October 29, 2007, 12:00 PM
i heard they dont enforce the law actually and mean it more to urge people to own gun...

SDC
October 29, 2007, 12:12 PM
In the case of Kennesaw, their law is written to exempt "conscientous objectors", so if you don't WANT to own a gun, you don't NEED to own one.

40SW
October 29, 2007, 12:21 PM
Isnt it true that in most municipalities where there is mandatory compliance, actual compliance already exists, so its really a non issue. I do however agree that there are obviously practical issues involved. I would like to see how well the model has worked in Switzerland where there used to be a similar quasi mandatory compliance doctrine.
Now, from a practical standpoint, mandatory firearms ownership and proficiency compliance has a number of benefits for a society.

1. Builds character and responsibility , (especially in youth).
2. Strong deterent against invasion (if you don't believe it, read up on the quotes from the Imprerial Japanese Naval Admiralty and why they didn't op for a ground amphibious invasion of San Diego harbor in WWII).
3. Deters domestic crime, home invasion, (the old adage from Heinlein, an armed society is a polite society, it is true).
4. Encourages recreational activity and grows the shooting sports, a great coomraidare and social bond).
5. So in the end, its a positive for a nation, but I think a ground work should be formulated where it is voluntary and the benefits spelled out.

Thoughts?

El Tejon
October 29, 2007, 12:28 PM
The RKBA was originally a right and a duty at common law.

People yap endlessly about their rights, but are silent about their duties. Just look at all the "my rights" threads we have here at THR in contrast to the training threads we have.

It's time to make the right to arms a right and a duty again. I would start by making competence with an M16 a requirement for voting.:)

mavracer
October 29, 2007, 12:33 PM
Hey Z you forgot one big PRO Kennesaw which is near Atlanta (a relatively high crime large city) has not had a gun related murder in the 25 years since it passed.

6_gunner
October 29, 2007, 12:38 PM
I would object to it on the basis of personal freedom, mainly because of the cost and time involved. I personally don't own a cell phone because I don't want/need one enough to spend money on it. I wouldn't take kindly to the government saying that I HAD to buy a cell phone. Same thing with guns for most people.

However, the government could supply used military and police guns to people who don't have one, with little cost to the taxpayer. They could make training a part of the public school curriculum. I would be okay with that.

Gator
October 29, 2007, 12:48 PM
-Imposition on individual freedom?

You are not forced to own a gun if you do not one.

tinygnat219
October 29, 2007, 12:51 PM
I think the Constitution here works both ways. Yeah, the state should not interfere with my constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. On the same coin, if I don't have a gun it's not the state's responsibility to ensure that I have one. I do have a right to choose NOT to have a gun. I would definitely respect that right. I keep having a feeling that some anti-gunner is going to move down there and get the fine and then sue the town for violating their Constitutional Rights. I'd just leave the "required" off of the books and make it "friendly" for people who support the 2nd Amendment.

fireflyfather
October 29, 2007, 12:53 PM
Strong deterent against invasion (if you don't believe it, read up on the quotes from the Imprerial Japanese Naval Admiralty and why they didn't op for a ground amphibious invasion of San Diego harbor in WWII).

Links please.

ZeSpectre
October 29, 2007, 01:33 PM
"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)

Technosavant
October 29, 2007, 02:08 PM
I would side with those who oppose mandatory ownership on grounds it imposes upon the freedom of the individual. The way Kennesaw's law is written, it really isn't mandatory ownership. Mandatory means that you have to do it, and saying "I don't wanna" is no excuse.

While El Tejon's "duty" reasoning does appeal somewhat to me, I still do not find it persuasive. There's enough people out there who want to own them to defend even those who don't want them (and won't wield them).

We aren't required to exercise our other rights- we can indeed waive our rights to free speech, unreasonable search, and so on. Why should the right to own implements of self defense be any different?

RoadkingLarry
October 29, 2007, 02:10 PM
I'd much rather see a resolution "strongly encouraging" private firearms ownership and City/County/State partnering with local level organizations to provide safe and affordable places to shoot and receive training.

Grizzly Adams
October 29, 2007, 02:13 PM
Read the laws carefully. As stated above these laws have exemptions that amount to just saying you don't want to own or don't like guns!

K3
October 29, 2007, 02:15 PM
It's time to make the right to arms a right and a duty again. I would start by making competence with an M16 a requirement for voting.

And by M-16, you mean M-16 rather than just an AR? I like it! There should be a CMP program for M-16s too. That old registry thing gets in the way though.

rritter
October 29, 2007, 05:44 PM
K3, that brings up an idea I've had. The government should make surplus infantry weapons (M-14, M-16 through M-4 and on to whatever replaces that) available at a reasonable cost (the government's cost + 10%, maybe) to anyone who is legally qualified to own a rifle. These would be considered militia weapons, and you would have to produce it once/year to show that it's still in good working order. There would be no transfer fee involved, although it would be registered (no real way around that with the government supplying it).

That would produce a well-armed militia. Some additional requirements (training/proficiency, for example) might also be added, but it would allow any citizen who is legally allowed to own a rifle to buy a cheap, select-fire militia weapon, in exchange for being willing to participate in the militia.

Soybomb
October 29, 2007, 05:54 PM
I like freedom, if you don't want to use or touch a gun I fully support that.

1911Tuner
October 29, 2007, 05:59 PM
The issue isn't whether to own a gun...or not. The issue is the right to decide without assistance. "Forced Compliance" isn't an ideology that sits well with me...no matter which direction it points.

joab
October 29, 2007, 09:04 PM
Kennesaw which is near Atlanta (a relatively high crime large city) has not had a gun related murder in the 25 years since it passed.Can you back that up
Not doubting you, but I have to be able to provide proof when I use it against my niece

Fisherman_48768
October 29, 2007, 09:11 PM
I agree that people should not be forced to bear arms because it imposes on their personal freedoms.

I sure wish somebody had told that to my draft board in 1966, the only way I could beat the draft was enlist in the AF.

chris in va
October 29, 2007, 09:11 PM
Maybe a discount of some sort, an incentive. "Mossberg 500, $75".

tbtrout
October 29, 2007, 09:26 PM
Forcing someone to own a firearm is the same backwards thinking as banning ownership of firearms. They both infringe on the personal liberties of the individual.

Crunker1337
October 29, 2007, 09:45 PM
The beauty of America is that you're free to live life as you please. You have the right to buy firearms, if that's what you want. By that same token, you have the right to not buy firearms and NO ONE has the right to force you to make life decisions that you don't want to.

It would be reasonable, however, to give responsible firearm owners a small tax break, since responsible firearms ownership is a detriment to crime, which benefits the community at large.

Titan6
October 30, 2007, 10:44 PM
Nope. Never would work. If the state were to issue militia rifles that would be a whole other story.

Double Naught Spy
October 30, 2007, 11:38 PM
If you are required to own a firearm and have safety training, then why not mandate knife ownership and training along with first aid training? Where would such mandates stop?

Given the amount of time most of the population spends watching TV and surfing the net, a minor intrusion would be... well, minor.

People may physically have time not dedicated to crucial daily tasks that could be used for training, but why should people be forced to give up their spare time for something they don't want?

On top of that, folks like single parents truly may not have spare time.

A Maverick 88 shotgun costs $200 new. That's about 40 packs of cigarettes or 34 six-packs of beer. It's not much. No, everyone is not making six figures, but most people, even those considered low income, can scrape together for it.
Perhaps the rule should be you must own a gun before you can get cable TV.


Once again, why should people be forced to pay for something they don't want and/or be forced to give up other activities to comply?

Probably the hardest to refute, but, as they say: Freedom isn't free.

So you are saying you are willing to pay additional $ beyond what you already pay for freedom? Where does it stop?

1. Builds character and responsibility , (especially in youth).
So do many other activities that don't involve lethal force.

2. Strong deterent against invasion (if you don't believe it, read up on the quotes from the Imprerial Japanese Naval Admiralty and why they didn't op for a ground amphibious invasion of San Diego harbor in WWII).
It may have been the case a long time ago for the Japanese in WWII, but it sure isn't helping stop illegal immigration or suicide bombers.

3. Deters domestic crime, home invasion, (the old adage from Heinlein, an armed society is a polite society, it is true).
Deters crime? Not necessarily. This isn't supported by FBI crime stats.

Polite? Oh yeah, like in Somalia. :rolleyes:

4. Encourages recreational activity and grows the shooting sports, a great coomraidare and social bond).
Many non-lethal pursuits encourage recreational activities, social bonding, etc. and problems other pursuits.

kazzaerexys
October 31, 2007, 03:36 PM
Well, if you look back at the history of the early Republic, the whole "well regulated militia" thing (as we all know, *not* the National Guard) referred to all able-bodied males; said militia men in most (all?) districts were expected to turn out for regular muster, and they were expected to have their muskets with them. The men could be fined for not presenting their weapons at muster. And, of course, these were not government hand-outs or subsidies. They were the able-bodied men's own personally owned, military-grade assault weapons.

So I don't think any of the founding fathers would have problems with mandatory ownership. As earlier posts mentioned, there is a relationship between rights and duties, and it could well be considered the duty of every adult eligible to vote to take his or her own part in the common welfare. Inasmuch as personal freedom is involved, well, we already understand the notion of conscientious objector and that could be applied here, too. It also seems like most of the statues cited allow for financial hardship exceptions.

How about this for a compromise---required ownership for all voting eligible property owners, and the local municipality reduces their first year's property taxes by (or amortizes over, say, three years' taxes) the cost of a given 12- or 16-gauge shotgun and a hundred rounds?

Soybomb
October 31, 2007, 09:03 PM
How about this for a compromise---required ownership for all voting eligible property owners, and the local municipality reduces their first year's property taxes by (or amortizes over, say, three years' taxes) the cost of a given 12- or 16-gauge shotgun and a hundred rounds?
How is that really a compromise? You'd still be forcing people to own things they would rather not own. What is the goal you're trying to reach? It seems like a great way to wind up with a bunch of neglected (in the sense of safe secure storage and maintenance) guns that ultimately we'll all pay for with higher taxes.

Ed Ames
October 31, 2007, 09:29 PM
You are required to serve on juries. You are required to pay taxes. Fail to do either and you can end up in jail.

Nothing inherently wrong with counting gun ownership as a civic responsibility and tax.

Double Naught Spy
October 31, 2007, 09:39 PM
Well, if you look back at the history of the early Republic, the whole "well regulated militia" thing (as we all know, *not* the National Guard) referred to all able-bodied males; said militia men in most (all?) districts were expected to turn out for regular muster, and they were expected to have their muskets with them. The men could be fined for not presenting their weapons at muster. And, of course, these were not government hand-outs or subsidies. They were the able-bodied men's own personally owned, military-grade assault weapons.

Source?

"military grade assault weapons"? LOL In the 1700s, it wasn't like military rifles were rolling off assembly lines, all with interchangeable parts. Most were still hand made, all parts unique. There wasn't a lot of technological difference between "military" rifles and personal rifles.

Of course at that time, people hunted with muskets quite a bit as well and they were common tools used regularly. Plus, there was no police. There was no 911.

kazzaerexys
November 1, 2007, 03:35 PM
Yes, calling them 'assault weapons' is intended to be a little tongue in cheek, but a serious point as well---these men were obligated to own and maintain their own military weapons, and they did so under penalty of the law. This was at the time that the Constitution was young and new, so my point is that the founding fathers apparently didn't have a problem with the idea of required ownership of a weapon as a civic duty.

If you want a source on the militia obligations, look up any of the recent scholarly entries on the topic at Clayton Cramer's blog (http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/blogger.html). He's been talking about it a lot lately.

(As an aside, wasn't it during the Revolution that some Colonial came up with interchangeable gun parts, thus enhancing the Colonists rather poor logistical capability versus that of the Big Bad Red-Coats? Somebody who remembers their gunsmithing history a bit better than me should chime in here... :) )

As for the compromise I suggested above, I meant the compromise of reducing the pool of required owners (only to land-owners) with a financial incentive (reducing their property taxes) towards compliance.

Titan6
November 1, 2007, 04:34 PM
"military grade assault weapons"? LOL In the 1700s, it wasn't like military rifles were rolling off assembly lines, all with interchangeable parts. Most were still hand made, all parts unique.

The most important part (the ammo) was mostly interchangeable. We would have many more issues today than back then.

Plus, there was no police. There was no 911.

*Sigh* There are so many things wrong with that statement in this context I don't even know where to begin.

akodo
November 1, 2007, 05:10 PM
I would be against any sort of Fine, Fee, Jail Time, or Restriction of Rights for those who choose not to own a firearm.

However, there are many times the government even at the community level imposes itself, for the good of all in that community. Two examples that spring immediately to mind are Jury Duty and Shoveling Snow On Your Sidewalk.

I think it is quite reasonable to require firearms, with the caveat that anyone who objects to ownership of one need only stop by city hall and fill out a form stating so.

Joe Demko
November 1, 2007, 05:54 PM
Crimoney. For people who do so much squealing about freedom, when it's something you think is a good idea, forcing something on other people is something you find easy to excuse.
Marko Kloos was right.

TwitchALot
November 1, 2007, 09:09 PM
As a libertarian (and Constitutionalist), I believe in freedom and liberty, so my stance might seem obvious.

Then again, the rumor is that this law is not enforced (ie. if you don't own a gun, you won't be punished for it), so I have no problem with it. If it were enforced, obviously that'd be a whole different ball game.

armedandsafe
November 1, 2007, 11:53 PM
In the 1700s, it wasn't like military rifles were rolling off assembly lines, all with interchangeable parts. Most were still hand made, all parts unique. There wasn't a lot of technological difference between "military" rifles and personal rifles.

You just made his point for him. Militia arms were expected to be of quality with military issue. I'll take an air-cooled Browning, thank you.

Pops

mljdeckard
November 2, 2007, 03:44 AM
I am proud to be in a unique position to comment on this one.

I lived in Virgin UT for the five years prior to joining the army and leaving home. My great-grandfather was one of the founding members. (Don't ask me why it's named Virgin, I won't answer, but I will tell you that for one year, my sister was actually Miss Virgin.)

The town has about 300 people, although I understand a lot of the land to the west has been freed up for development. (For those of you who like building in a very seismically active area.) There is no police force. The judge died about 15 years ago. They pay the Sheriff dept to look sideways as they drive through town. (That is unfair, an actual deputy bought my grandmother's house there.) This town is up the hill from La Verkin, UT, where they tried a few years ago to pass a city ordinance banning the U.N. from operating within the city limits. (And you thought the gun law was unenforceable.) I know all of the mayors/councilmen responsible for these laws. I dated some of their daughters.

This town has pretty much no business of its own, everyone either travels up the canyon to jobs related to Zion National Park, or into Hurricane or St. George. There are several families that make a living exclusively from local agriculture. (Steaks that taste like sagebrush.) What is does have, is a great sense of unity and community. It is not at all a place that seems weird with rifles in the back windows of pickup trucks.

Double Naught Spy
November 2, 2007, 09:07 AM
If you want a source on the militia obligations, look up any of the recent scholarly entries on the topic at Clayton Cramer's blog. He's been talking about it a lot lately.

You are going to have to do better than that. The guy comments on all sorts of topics. How about providing a link to the actual page and a quote from it? Otherwise, juust where are these supposed scholarly entries on required or obliged gun ownership? And yes, I did notice how you transitioned from "required" to "obliged " between your two posts.[/QUOTE]

(As an aside, wasn't it during the Revolution that some Colonial came up with interchangeable gun parts, thus enhancing the Colonists rather poor logistical capability versus that of the Big Bad Red-Coats?
Nope, it was in the early 1700s in France.

You just made his point for him. Militia arms were expected to be of quality with military issue. I'll take an air-cooled Browning, thank you.


No, militia arms in the US, or in the "Colonies" at the time were not required to be of military quality unless military quality meant "functioning." My point was that the quality and technology was so low that there wasn't much of a difference. Let's see, black powder, single shot, flintlock, smoothbore pretty well covers it.

I have not seen the supposed laws requiring colonists to own guns, but maybe somebody will publish an actual link and educate me. My point is that a lot of folks had guns simply because guns were a part of typical colonial life requirements for subsisting in the New World along with a variety of other implements such as knives, axes, and saws, not because it was required by some sort of law.

Crimoney. For people who do so much squealing about freedom, when it's something you think is a good idea, forcing something on other people is something you find easy to excuse.

Yes, we are gun people, inherently smarter than the rest of the population because we own guns and hence know better what everyone should do. Non-gun owners and anti-gun people obviously do not have a clue and so we don't listen to their ideas. If they require us to wear seatbelts and talk about our responsibility to society to be safer, we balk at how they are infringing on OUR freedoms and yet we are more than happy to suggest folks should be required to own guns because it is some sort of obligation we should all have. We can even rationalize it by saying everyone has more than enough time and money to implement gun ownership and training and that they just need to curtail a few activities in order to comply with our demands. Sheesh.

kazzaerexys
November 6, 2007, 01:56 PM
I assure there is no inherent subterfuge in my choice of 'obligation' vs. 'requirement.' If you explain to me what you think the difference is, I will let you know which meaning I intended.

As for the Cramer postings I thought relevant to this discussion:


http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2007_10_21_archive.html#7582850101940222759
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2007_10_21_archive.html#7623059385434904689
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2007_10_07_archive.html#1028848254359125683

They aren't on exactly this topic, but I brought them up for the purposes of indicating (1) the concept of militia at the time of the Founding Fathers referred to all able-bodied males and that (2) militiamen were expected to have and to maintain the weapons they would use if called to war. Therefore, the concept of required ownership of weapons has been around this country for quite a long time. (I particularly like the middle link which provides contemporary newspaper articles reminding said militiamen that they faced fines for not bringing their guns to church. :) )

By the way, right above the posting on that middle link is a link to the full text of the Northwest Territory Militia Act (http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/militia/NorthWestTerrMilitiaAct.pdf). To quote from it:

And whereas in the infant state of the country defense and protection are absolutely essential, all male inhabitants of the age of fifteen and upwards shall be armed, equipped and accounted in the following manner;

With a musket and bayonet, or rifle, cartridge box and pouch, or, powder horn and bullet pouch, with forty rounds of cartridges or one pound of powder and four pounds of lead, priming wire and brush and fix flints.

Sounds like required/obligated/mandatory ownership to me.

Yes, you can argue that any attempt at required ownership violates somebody's freedom *from* owning guns. The fact is, though, that we all understand the notion that some restrictions on even the most essential rights are necessary in order to maintain a functioning society---e.g., your freedom of speech doesn't let you yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater and your freedom of religion doesn't let you engage in human sacrifice. So the argument is, does mandatory ownership provide a sufficient benefit in terms of civic responsibility and protection/preservation of society so as to warrant the loss of freedom not to own a weapon? I have merely attempted to point out that, at one time (and, indeed, a time very well understood by the people who wrote our Constitution), this was seen as a perfectly reasonable trade-off.

It is definitely a debatable point, and an interesting one at that. I just hope that the counter argument is something better than a desire to preserve one's freedom *from* responsibility.

El Tejon
November 6, 2007, 02:18 PM
The right to arms started as a duty. There is no reason it should not remain a duty.

"My rights, my rights" can only go so far until you need to consider your duties.

Double Naught Spy
November 6, 2007, 04:06 PM
Okay, so there is no requirement for "military grade" rifles. That was a bending of information. As for the Northwest Territory Militia Act, interesting. It applies not to states, but to the territory NW of the Ohio River, after the formation of the United States. Interesting that such requirements were not Constitutional.

The Northwest Militia Act was by the Govenor of the territory and not by the Founding Fathers.

Titan6
November 6, 2007, 05:37 PM
The right to arms started as a duty. There is no reason it should not remain a duty.

Sadly this concept ended with the welfare state.

Baba Louie
November 6, 2007, 08:10 PM
The right to arms started as a duty. There is no reason it should not remain a duty.Unless you were a Pennslyvanian Quaker or a Dutch/German Amish/Mennonite, i.e., religious C.O. (Read Mason/Madison's first attempt at the 2nd that they sent to the House for discussion and voting. Later edited by the Senate into a more abbreviate format, then crystal clear, now muddied by the befuddled, ignorant and willful disarmament segment of society).

While it's a good idea to have an armed populace of law abiding citizens (and we do), I really question some do-gooder political type deciding he/she knows what's best for all of society without carefully thinking out all of the possible ramifications and consequences and providing a "sunset" clause. (But that should go for ALL new laws enacted)

It might be that such a law will diminish some crime. Not going to hold my breath waiting... tho it does lead one to believe that if a ner-do-well knew that everyone in town was armed... he'd strike when no one was at home and steal the mandated firearm and anything else he could grab and fence. :scrutiny:

It might also be that what one political majority decides today will allow some future politicial majority an opening to "Un-do" or "Add-to" new onurous clauses (mandatory "safe" storage ala D.C. or registration per NYC using the old "camel's nose under the tent trick") and/or allow some legal beagle a chance to throw a lawsuit together in the happenstance that someone missuses their legislatively required firearm to the detriment of "the common good" or in violation of his client's "civil rights" and will seek out financial largesse for his/her client at the taxpayers expense.

But hey... whaddaIknow? If it saves one childs life...:rolleyes:

Suffice it to say that Congress shall not infringe on our RKBA's. (Yeah right. Unless of course it can somehow remotely be construed as affecting Interstate Commerce or an item upon which they can levy a tax... better yet, both.) It'd be wonderful if every state had a similar clause in their State Constitution. Most do... (hello NY?, Are ya listening CA? Iowa? Minnesota? New Jersey? Maryland? Anyone home there?)

Double Naught Spy
November 30, 2007, 12:21 AM
And whereas in the infant state of the country defense and protection are absolutely essential, all male inhabitants of the age of fifteen and upwards shall be armed, equipped and accounted in the following manner;

With a musket and bayonet, or rifle, cartridge box and pouch, or, powder horn and bullet pouch, with forty rounds of cartridges or one pound of powder and four pounds of lead, priming wire and brush and fix flints.

Funny things about the NW Territory act. It establishes a militia in that territory and required arms in 1794. This example was offered above as proof that gun ownership was required in the early days of the republic and hence used to justify why ownership should be required now.

HOWEVER, the Constitution for the Republic was ratified 7 years earlier in 1787. So from an earlier and actual "early days of the Republic" example, the Constitution stipulates that it is the responsibility of the government to provide arms to the militia and not that militia members must provide their own arms....

From Article 1, Section 8
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

TargetTerror
November 30, 2007, 01:34 AM
Forcing someone to own a firearm is the same backwards thinking as banning ownership of firearms. They both infringe on the personal liberties of the individual.

+1

Diamondback6
November 30, 2007, 01:41 AM
I would start by making competence with an M16 a requirement for voting.
But what if I prefer a more useful arm, like a Garand or M14?:D

If you enjoyed reading about "Pondering implications of "required ownership"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!